One bid league?

[BCPanther]

It may be a one-bid league this year if Loyola falters, but when's the last time half the league was top 100 in KenPom? Ok, technically UNI is 101 but still shows how solid of a conference this is.

UNI has been floating from 101-104 for three weeks regardless of results. It's TOTALLY meaningless but it's a mental thing that I'd like to see a two digit number there lol.

[VUGrad1314]

Looking pretty one bid right now to be honest but I have to say that Loyola hasn't had any bad losses that doom their candidacy yet. If they can get by Illinois State they have back to back Q2 opportunities coming up. Get those and their candidacy looks a lot stronger (especially if Missouri State Bradley and UNI can stay around where they are in the NET). It still comes down to somebody other than the Ramblers winning in St Louis as well (maybe Missouri State can sneak into this conversation but I feel they would probably have to win out and even then their resume has some significant warts (4 Q3 losses 1 Q4 loss) that probably keep them out without the autobid But they do have a significant stretch that can help them a lot as 4 of their next 6 games are Q2. If they win most of those they can potentially start building a pretty strong case.) Moreover as for Loyola I think they probably has to go to the title game as well but maybe they have a strong enough brand name that they can skate by without that. I'd like their chances a lot more if they do get there though. So much depends on these teams cashing in their upcoming Q1 and Q2 opportunities.

[RacerJoeD]

Have to remember that the bubble is dynamic- Loyola has their resume. Its a good one. But the reality is that many of these bubble teams form bigger conferences won't have as good a resume. As of now, Loyola is in. If they lose in the tourney, at this point they would be in.

[BEARZ77]

I think what is being overlooked is Q-1/Q-2 wins and record. Example : Loyola has a NET of 32 with a 1-2 record vs Q-1 and a 3-2 record vs Q-2. So a total of 4 Q1/Q2 wins and a .500 record. Miami has a Net of 60, with a 2-1 record vs Q-1 and a 5-2 record vs Q- 2, so 7 Q1/Q2 wins and a record of 7-3 in those games. I guarantee based on past experience, that Miami would get in before Loyola. Net is just a comparison # but decisions get made based on who you proven you can beat, and simply mid level P-5's will always have a huge advantage in # of opportunities for those Q-1/Q-2 wins .

[BCPanther]

I, for one, am shocked they got rid of the metric that mids could take advantage of in favor of one that's secret and seems to overly reward teams blowing out games they can buy and play at home.

[BuBrave2006]

I think what is being overlooked is Q-1/Q-2 wins and record. Example : Loyola has a NET of 32 with a 1-2 record vs Q-1 and a 3-2 record vs Q-2. So a total of 4 Q1/Q2 wins and a .500 record. Miami has a Net of 60, with a 2-1 record vs Q-1 and a 5-2 record vs Q- 2, so 7 Q1/Q2 wins and a record of 7-3 in those games. I guarantee based on past experience, that Miami would get in before Loyola. Net is just a comparison # but decisions get made based on who you proven you can beat, and simply mid level P-5's will always have a huge advantage in # of opportunities for those Q-1/Q-2 wins .

I'd like to know why Loyola is 20 spots higher in the NET. When you look at who both teams have played and who they've beaten and lost to, it surprises me Loyola is that far ahead.

[RacerJoeD]

I, for one, am shocked they got rid of the metric that mids could take advantage of in favor of one that's secret and seems to overly reward teams blowing out games they can buy and play at home.

Not sure that is all true. Margin of victory doesn’t seem to impact NET. Instead it seems to take efficiency on the offensive and defensive end. Basically, it’s an attempt to base it on how well you play. It’s a predictive metric. It’s an attempt at a predictive index.

And so far it doesn’t seem to harm MMs. Currently, Bracketologists.com has set the NCAA line at 50. Better than 50, there are two teams from the OVC, four from the Mountain West, four West Coast teams, one from the SoCon, one from CUSA, one from the MVC, and an A10 team. That’s 14 out of 50 or 28% of the top 50. That’s what the NET rankings say.

Where it gets screwed up is when you look at NET ranking, AND THEN LOOK AT A PART OF THE NET RANKING to justify inclusion or exclusion. If you do that, you are double dipping a data point. For example, a NET ranking should be used by itself, compared only to itself. By then looking at Q1/Q2 wins, you are skewing the data. After all the Quadrant system is based on NET rankings, and are included in the NET itself. Same for strength of schedule. If you hear members of selection committee talking about those things as reasons to include/exclude teams, that’s them putting their finger in the scale.

[Kyle_Saluki_17]

I, for one, am shocked they got rid of the metric that mids could take advantage of in favor of one that's secret and seems to overly reward teams blowing out games they can buy and play at home.

Not sure that is all true. Margin of victory doesn’t seem to impact NET. Instead it seems to take efficiency on the offensive and defensive end. Basically, it’s an attempt to base it on how well you play. It’s a predictive metric. It’s an attempt at a predictive index.

And so far it doesn’t seem to harm MMs. Currently, Bracketologists.com has set the NCAA line at 50. Better than 50, there are two teams from the OVC, four from the Mountain West, four West Coast teams, one from the SoCon, one from CUSA, one from the MVC, and an A10 team. That’s 14 out of 50 or 28% of the top 50. That’s what the NET rankings say.

Where it gets screwed up is when you look at NET ranking, AND THEN LOOK AT A PART OF THE NET RANKING to justify inclusion or exclusion. If you do that, you are double dipping a data point. For example, a NET ranking should be used by itself, compared only to itself. By then looking at Q1/Q2 wins, you are skewing the data. After all the Quadrant system is based on NET rankings, and are included in the NET itself. Same for strength of schedule. If you hear members of selection committee talking about those things as reasons to include/exclude teams, that’s them putting their finger in the scale.

It’s just using margin of victory in an indirect way. Instead of taking a 25 point win at face value, it’s a team averaging 0.5 points per possession over 50 possessions per say. Yes, I know there is both offense and defense metrics, but dumbing it down is basically margin of victory and quality of opponent, with a slight adjustment for being on the road, home, or neutral court). The success formula remains the same regardless. Win, and win by a lot, and your net will move in the right direction.

[RacerJoeD]

It’s an over simplification. If you play well and win by five it’s worth more than winning by fifty but being sloppy. For example, one of Murray’s two losses is a loss to ETSU (Q3) on a neutral floor. The Racers played well except they could hit a shot. I mean absolutely ice cold. Not a ton of turnovers, the defense played well, good rebounding, just couldn’t hit the broad side of a barn. In the RPI, it’s a bad loss. In the NET, the loss doesn’t matter as much because other than your shooting percentage, you played well. There is nuance here.

By the way I don’t like how the NET is kept secret, but my point is that it doesn’t seem to inherently work against MMs.

[IllinoisState]

By the way I don’t like how the NET is kept secret, but my point is that it doesn’t seem to inherently work against MMs.

Any formula that isn't 100% public with no human portion and isn't solely used for seeding will always be abused to serve the "P5" teams.